To clarify... at halftime, the refs asked Clemson if they would be willing to shorten the game, if SC St agreed. They asked SC St, and they agreed. So in the 2nd half, they shorted each quarter by exactly 3 minutes, which conveniently made the game a total of 54 minutes...
Vegas requires 55 minutes for a game to be considered official!
Gotta be one of the fishiest outcomes to a game... but I can't imagine Vegas took a ton of action on this game, so it is hard to fathom this was intentionally rigged, despite the fishiness!
Still... consider this... if you bet on Clemson, you are winning by 45 at halftime, and the refs shorten the game specifically because Clemson is doing exactly what you needed them to do when you laid the points. And they shorten it by exactly the amount needed for you to not get the cover...
Hard to imagine a more f***ed up way to get no action on a winning bet...
The Dude imbibes
0
To clarify... at halftime, the refs asked Clemson if they would be willing to shorten the game, if SC St agreed. They asked SC St, and they agreed. So in the 2nd half, they shorted each quarter by exactly 3 minutes, which conveniently made the game a total of 54 minutes...
Vegas requires 55 minutes for a game to be considered official!
Gotta be one of the fishiest outcomes to a game... but I can't imagine Vegas took a ton of action on this game, so it is hard to fathom this was intentionally rigged, despite the fishiness!
Still... consider this... if you bet on Clemson, you are winning by 45 at halftime, and the refs shorten the game specifically because Clemson is doing exactly what you needed them to do when you laid the points. And they shorten it by exactly the amount needed for you to not get the cover...
Hard to imagine a more f***ed up way to get no action on a winning bet...
Depends on the book, but some paid out on Clemson, and no actioned SCst bets. South Point was the book I read about.
Mine was cancelled
I find that very hard to believe... were they being charitable? They paid out the winners but cancelled the losers? Seems like someone made a mistake, if that is the case...
If it was intentional, that has to be a gambling first!
The Dude imbibes
0
Quote Originally Posted by BandosWB:
Depends on the book, but some paid out on Clemson, and no actioned SCst bets. South Point was the book I read about.
Mine was cancelled
I find that very hard to believe... were they being charitable? They paid out the winners but cancelled the losers? Seems like someone made a mistake, if that is the case...
If it was intentional, that has to be a gambling first!
Some books have done that before, usually offshore ones for publicity. My online bets on the game got paid on Clemson. This is one reason I never make FBS-FCS more than a 1* bet, also the low limits.
0
Some books have done that before, usually offshore ones for publicity. My online bets on the game got paid on Clemson. This is one reason I never make FBS-FCS more than a 1* bet, also the low limits.
Clemson played pretty pathetic on offense, usually a game has to be more than 45-0 at halftime for them to do this sorta thing. I dont think the refs are sitting there getting a call from someone before the game saying hey we have tons of money on Clemson help us out.
0
Clemson played pretty pathetic on offense, usually a game has to be more than 45-0 at halftime for them to do this sorta thing. I dont think the refs are sitting there getting a call from someone before the game saying hey we have tons of money on Clemson help us out.
That is certainly a generous move by the South Point... and classy, too! And I agree, a low limit FCS-FBS game with an 8 TD spread, that had opened betting one day earlier, does not raise red flags for Vegas rigging...
The Dude imbibes
0
That is certainly a generous move by the South Point... and classy, too! And I agree, a low limit FCS-FBS game with an 8 TD spread, that had opened betting one day earlier, does not raise red flags for Vegas rigging...
Its happened a few times before. BC/Howard was shortened 10 minutes last year with BC winning 62-0 at half. 2 more games the year before...
It leads one to wonder if they should allow these teams to schedule like this anymore. Seriously, it must be a safety issue if they have to shorten the game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
Its happened a few times before. BC/Howard was shortened 10 minutes last year with BC winning 62-0 at half. 2 more games the year before...
It leads one to wonder if they should allow these teams to schedule like this anymore. Seriously, it must be a safety issue if they have to shorten the game.
@themugg... I can understand how it was beneficial to Clemson as they are on a short turnaround and facing a more difficult opponent... so that seems to be the only real justification
The Dude imbibes
0
@thorpe... 62-0 seems more justifiable than 45-0
@themugg... I can understand how it was beneficial to Clemson as they are on a short turnaround and facing a more difficult opponent... so that seems to be the only real justification
I dont think it should be allowed period ! If you are playing Clemson next week, how do you feel that they got to rest a little bit ?
Nothing to do with the Gambling...
I always thought the off shore books had an air tight software package until I cashed on a Steven Bodwitch win on a Scott brown bet... Was nice to get 2500.00 on a dollar bet for a player I did not play...
Was almost dumb enough to be honest and tell them...
0
I dont think it should be allowed period ! If you are playing Clemson next week, how do you feel that they got to rest a little bit ?
Nothing to do with the Gambling...
I always thought the off shore books had an air tight software package until I cashed on a Steven Bodwitch win on a Scott brown bet... Was nice to get 2500.00 on a dollar bet for a player I did not play...
Was almost dumb enough to be honest and tell them...
To clarify... at halftime, the refs asked Clemson if they would be willing to shorten the game, if SC St agreed. They asked SC St, and they agreed. So in the 2nd half, they shorted each quarter by exactly 3 minutes, which conveniently made the game a total of 54 minutes...
***
Hard to imagine a more f***ed up way to get no action on a winning bet...
Same thing happened 100 years ago when Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0. Now *that* would have been a bad beat for Tech backers.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Duderonomy:
To clarify... at halftime, the refs asked Clemson if they would be willing to shorten the game, if SC St agreed. They asked SC St, and they agreed. So in the 2nd half, they shorted each quarter by exactly 3 minutes, which conveniently made the game a total of 54 minutes...
***
Hard to imagine a more f***ed up way to get no action on a winning bet...
Same thing happened 100 years ago when Georgia Tech beat Cumberland 222-0. Now *that* would have been a bad beat for Tech backers.
Clemson has had some suspicious activity early. If people recall week 1? Not kicking that FG that would of pushed or allowed most tickets to cover. Then Auburn moves ball down and gets 2 shots at a hailmary for outright win. One of the stranger backdoor jobs ever. Watching game looked like Clemson severely outplayed them only to not cover.
Week 2, gutless display vs Troy.
Week 3, agrees to shorten a game to just enough for a no cover.
Week 4? Probably will blow out GT now that everyone is suspicious of them
0
Clemson has had some suspicious activity early. If people recall week 1? Not kicking that FG that would of pushed or allowed most tickets to cover. Then Auburn moves ball down and gets 2 shots at a hailmary for outright win. One of the stranger backdoor jobs ever. Watching game looked like Clemson severely outplayed them only to not cover.
Week 2, gutless display vs Troy.
Week 3, agrees to shorten a game to just enough for a no cover.
Week 4? Probably will blow out GT now that everyone is suspicious of them
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.